That is the extra claim you make, that I do not. And you keep making it and not justifying it. I'm unsurprised, because I have never heard any justification in many years of such discussion. — unenlightened
When you take away biology, and you take away all the experiences of your life, WHAT is left of you that could make decisions? — NKBJ
However we verify or falsify the argument, free will never find solid ground outside of an irrational belief system. — Christoffer
I've never tried it. If you have, perhaps you can tell me, but your question is rhetorical, so of course you cannot, you merely show that you assume there is nothing, and cannot be anything — unenlightened
Until you can explain to me what about the self could be free from determinism, your entire theory is based merely on wishful thinking. — NKBJ
I just told you my theory is based on what appears to be the case, that I can choose freely, not at all on what I wish — unenlightened
Feel free. :grin: — unenlightened
Thank you. You have a nice way of framing it all. — Merkwurdichliebe
I would add there is also the important debate of whether predetermined factors allow for the existence of the will, and to what degree it is free in relation to those factors. — Merkwurdichliebe
The eternal decision. I think this is what makes the willing agent relevent, whether or not its decision manifests into reality. In fact, I would say that when the will does not correspond to any existing state of affairs, it takes on even more importance. — Merkwurdichliebe
It take it from your terminology, you hold to a few Aristotilean presuppositions. — Merkwurdichliebe
In layman terms, causality is nullified by immutability, qua. the deterministic model. — Merkwurdichliebe
The important distinction is, as you say: existing, versus standing out. But I might argue that this standing out is existing, as such. [...] — Merkwurdichliebe
[...] And, if the deterministic model does essentially negate the deciding agent, then, then thing that exists is gone, and what are we left with: the model and irrelevant spectators. — Merkwurdichliebe
to explain freewill (necessary to comprehend it) we need to construct a causal model of it.
However we verify or falsify the argument, determinism will never find solid ground outside of an irrational belief system. — unenlightened
However closely you examine the virtual world of a computer game, you will never find anything that violates the determinism of the program; you will never find any trace of the player, but only of his input, which you may see as 'either random or programmed'. But we know that people play games, and are more than their avatars. — unenlightened
It appears to me that I make choices, and the making of choices entails that they are not already determined. — unenlightened
This could be an illusion, but no one has presented the least reason to think it is an illusion. — unenlightened
So just as I do not assume the sky is pink because it appears to be blue, so I don't assume that I cannot choose because it appears that I can. — unenlightened
If, on the other hand, you’re referring to a contra-causal capacity that supposedly makes us more responsible than what deterministic voluntary action affords, then it would be wrong not to deny that, at least on the assumption that we want a well-informed public." — NKBJ
Thinking that our free will and our sense of self is disconnected from that is both narcissistic and arrogant — Christoffer
if you have a cognitive bias towards believing determinism to be wrong, you will ignore those reasons and support. — Christoffer
This line of thinking is just naive. — Christoffer
that's fundamentally corrupt and biased. — Christoffer
There are a number of problems with that article but the first is this. Just how are we managing voluntary control over anything if causal determinism is the case? — Terrapin Station
So, in a sense, determinism is what makes having choices possible. — NKBJ
How is this possible? The antithesis of freewill is determinism. Determinism is defined in terms of causality. Freewill, if present, must be acausal. — TheMadFool
There are two things at stake here:
1. The theoretical concept of a "free will" that denotes uncaused choices and actions.
2. The concept of "free will" that most people actually mean when they use the term.
Think about 1. for a second. If your actions are totally uncaused, they must also be uncaused by emotions, reason, past experiences, and anything else. What would that mean for your actions? Would they still be your "choice" if reason and experience weren't factors? I don't see how. They would be random (mis?)firings of the brain.
As for 2, most people aren't worried about "free will" being informed by reason, emotions, and experience. They just insist that they have "free will" in the sense that they do not know themselves to be externally coerced, and that they are able to make decisions based on a combination of their own personal reasoning, emotions, and experiences.
Determinism allows for #2, but obviously contradicts #1. — NKBJ
I guess I'm saying that to be truly free we must be able to overcome any and all influences including emotions and reason. — TheMadFool
Wouldn't they still be your choices - albeit unrecognized and unforced?Think about 1. for a second. If your actions are totally uncaused, they must also be uncaused by emotions, reason, past experiences, and anything else. What would that mean for your actions? Would they still be your "choice" if reason and experience weren't factors? I don't see how. They would be random (mis?)firings of the brain. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.